MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293481499 · doi:10.1177/10497323221121209

The Good, the Bad, and the Vision: Exploring the Mental Health Care Experiences of Transitional-Aged Youth Using the Photovoice Method

2022· article· en· W4293481499 on OpenAlexafffund
Brianna Jackson, Richard Booth, Kimberley T. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRegistered Nurses’ Foundation of Ontario
KeywordsPhotovoiceMental healthPhoto elicitationFocus groupNexus (standard)PsychologyPopulationDistressNursingPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitional-aged youth (TAY) between the ages of 16 and 24 experience higher rates of mental distress than any other age group. It has long been recognized that stability, consistency, and continuity in mental health care delivery are of paramount importance; however, the disjointed progression from paediatric to adult psychiatric services leaves many TAY vulnerable to deleterious health outcomes. In Spring 2019, eight TAY living with mental health challenges participated in a Photovoice study designed to: (1) illuminate their individual transition experiences; and, (2) support a collective vision for optimal mental health care at this nexus. Participants took photographs that reflected three weekly topics— the good, the bad, and the vision—and engaged in a series of three corresponding photo-elicitation focus group sessions. Twenty-four images with accompanying titles and captions were sorted into nine participant-selected themes. Findings contribute to an enhanced awareness of psychiatric service delivery gaps experienced by TAY, and advocate for seamless and supportive transitions that more effectively meet the mental health care needs of this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0420.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.617
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.043 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207